university of texas claims were just at the way the university of michigan law school did it, so okay. there's a number of distinctions between the cases we think will help now more skeptical about racial preferences court, straight down his preferences. they wouldn't have to overrule the greater case because the greater case justice o'connor articulated to limit the size and duration of racial preference is to avoid abuses. but she didn't really enforce them. they remain on the books. her supports to resort to race. the university of texas to you to have this 10% plan. they get a lot of racial diversity and other diversity for the 10% plan. did they really need to use racial preferences on top of it? is one argument in favor. the court has said no racial balance, meaning you cannot try to mirror in the composition to racial abuse daily population. that is unconstitutional. the court has said. in texas although they haven't gotten used to racial proportionality, that is an explicit goal of their plan. we went to proportionality with people statewide. another principle was this isn't s